Oral Chinese Herbal Medicine as Prophylactic Treatment for Episodic Migraine in Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Lyu, Shaohua; Zhang, Claire Shuiqing; Guo, Xinfeng; Zhang, Anthony Lin; Sun, Jingbo; Lu, Chuanjian; Xue, Charlie Changli; Luo, Xiaodong

doi:https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/5181587

Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine

On this page

Abstract Introduction Methods Results Discussion Conclusion Data Availability Conflicts of Interest Authors’ Contributions Acknowledgments References Copyright Related Articles

Research Article | Open Access

Volume 2020 | Article ID 5181587 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/5181587

Oral Chinese Herbal Medicine as Prophylactic Treatment for Episodic Migraine in Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Shaohua Lyu,^1,2Claire Shuiqing Zhang,²Xinfeng Guo,¹Anthony Lin Zhang,²Jingbo Sun,¹Chuanjian Lu,¹Charlie Changli Xue,^1,2and Xiaodong Luo¹

Academic Editor: Mohieddin Jafari

Received15 May 2020

Revised07 Dec 2020

Accepted13 Dec 2020

Published28 Dec 2020

Abstract

Background. The prophylactic effects of Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) for migraine were examined in numerous clinical trials. This review aimed to analyze the effectiveness and safety of CHM as prophylactic treatment of migraine compared to flunarizine. Methods. Nine databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated effects of CHM for episodic migraine prophylaxis compared to flunarizine, published before March 2019. Results. Thirty-five RCTs with 2,840 participants met the inclusion criteria, and 31 of them were included in meta-analyses. The overall meta-analysis indicated that, when compared to flunarizine, CHM reduced the frequency of migraine attacks at the end of treatment (EoT) (21 studies, mean difference (MD) −1.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) (−1.69, −0.76)) and at the end of follow-up (EoFU) (five studies, MD −0.96, 95% CI (−1.70, −0.21)). Subgroup analyses based on the treatment duration, follow-up duration, and the dosage of flunarizine showed that CHM was superior to or comparable with flunarizine in reducing migraine frequency. Similar results were also found for secondary outcomes such as the pain visual analogue scale, migraine duration, responder rate, and acute medication usage. In particular, the studies that used CHM containing herb pairs (Chuan Xiong plus Bai Zhi and Chuan Xiong plus Tian Ma) showed promising results. However, the certainty of this evidence was evaluated as “low” or “very low” using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations approach. Conclusion. CHM appeared to be comparable with flunarizine in reducing the frequency of episodic migraine attacks in adults at EoT and EoFU and well-tolerated by participants, regardless of the treatment duration, follow-up duration, and dosage of flunarizine. Due to the low certainty of the evidence, the suggested promising prophylactic outcomes require higher quality evidence from further rigorous RCTs.

1. Introduction

Migraine is a primary headache disorder, manifesting in episodic headache attacks which usually lasts for 4–72 hours. The typical characteristics of a migraine headache include unilateral, pulsating pain with moderate to severe intensity, aggravation by routine physical activity, and association with nausea and/or photophobia and phonophobia [1].

Migraine has an estimated global prevalence of 14.7% [2]. According to the Global Burden of Disease published in 2018, migraine was ranked as the seventh most disabling disease and the third leading cause of disability of people aged 15–49 years [3]. Furthermore, the total financial burden of the disease on individuals and society, as reported in 2010, equated to over three billion pounds a year in the United Kingdom [4].

Migraine can be subdivided into episodic and chronic migraine. The former refers to headache attacks occurring less than 15 days per month, while the latter refers to 15 or more headache days per month. Episodic migraine accounts for the majority of migraineurs [1], but the condition can progress to chronic migraine, if not properly managed [5]. It was estimated that approximately 2.5% of episodic migraine cases develop into chronic migraine annually [6].

The clinical management of migraine involves pain rescue and prophylactic treatment. Generally, migraineurs are advised to be on continuous prophylactic treatment to reduce the frequency and severity of attacks. However, it was estimated that more than half of the migraineurs were unsatisfied with prophylactic pharmacotherapy due to insufficient improvements and unbearable side effects [7–9]. Flunarizine is a first-line medication recommended by clinical guidelines for migraine prophylaxis [10–13]. Its effects of preventing migraine attacks in adults have been confirmed by recently published systematic reviews [14, 15], clinical trials [16–18], and experimental studies [19–23]. However, unwanted adverse effects such as tiredness, mood swings, weight gain, and depression limit its use in clinical practice [16, 24].

Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) has been widely used in clinical practice for thousands of years in China, usually in the form of herbal formulas consisting of a group of individual herbs and often involves herb pairs [25]. CHM has been gradually gaining acceptance worldwide [26–29]. There have been a number of laboratory experiments [30–32], clinical trials [33], and systematic reviews with meta-analyses [34–37] evidence supporting CHM as a potential alternative therapy for migraine.

Four systematic reviews showed that oral CHM was more effective than placebo or conventional pharmacotherapies for migraine management [35–38]. However, none of these reviews provided evidence of prolonged treatment effects, which is important for migraine prophylaxis. In addition, the reviews accepted a range of medication used in the control groups [35–37]. Furthermore, most of the studies included in these reviews did not fulfil requirement that an effective migraine prophylaxis should be taken for no less than four weeks [10–12, 39, 40].

To provide more precise evidence to support the use of oral CHM for preventing episodic migraine in adults, this systematic review evaluates the clinical effectiveness and safety of CHM comparing with a first-line medication (flunarizine) in randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

2. Methods

This review applies the methods recommended by the Cochrane Handbook of Systematic Reviews of Interventions 5.1.0 [41]. The review protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42019123039).

2.1. Database Search and Study Screening

A rigorous electronic search was initially conducted in five English databases—PubMed, Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE), Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (including the Cochrane Library), and the Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED), and four Chinese databases—Biomedical Literature, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Chongqing VIP (CQVIP), and Wanfang database, from their inceptions to November 2018. An updated search was conducted in March 2019. The search strategy was designed according to three groups of search terms: participant condition (migraine), intervention (Chinese medicine, CHM, and related terms), and control (flunarizine). Reference lists of previously published reviews were screened for eligibility.

2.2. Study Selection

The inclusion criteria for this review were as follows: (1) participants aged between 18 and 75 years; (2) diagnosis of episodic migraine, with or without aura, according to clinical guidelines [1, 39, 40, 42]; (3) treatment intervention of orally administered CHM; (4) utilized only flunarizine as the control intervention; studies which allowed acute pain medications were included if the same medications were used in both the intervention and control groups; and (5) evaluated at least one of the following outcomes: migraine frequency, number of migraine days per month, responder rate, headache pain severity, average duration of attack, acute medication usage, and health-related quality of life.

The exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) studies which focused on acute migraine attack management; (2) combination of CHM with other types of Chinese medicine therapy or pharmacotherapy; (3) treatment duration of less than four weeks; and (4) different acute pain rescue medications applied in the intervention and control groups.

2.3. Data Extraction

After screening titles and abstracts, full texts were obtained and checked for eligibility by two authors (SL and CSZ). Data from eligible studies were extracted and cross-checked by two research assistants (YX and LL) using the EpiData software (EpiData Association, Odense, Denmark). Information of authors, publication year, title, journal, setting, study design, diagnostic criteria, sample size, dropout, age, gender, duration of migraine, CHM formula names and ingredients, dosage of flunarizine, treatment duration, follow-up duration, outcome measures, and adverse events (AEs) were extracted. Disagreements were discussed and resolved by the reviewers (SL and CSZ). Where there were missing, conflicting, or unclear data, we contacted the authors of the respective studies for clarification.

2.4. Risk of Bias Assessment

The methodological quality of included studies was assessed by two authors (SL and CSZ) using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool [41]. Trials were judged as “low,” “unclear,” or “high” risk of bias for the domains of sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of participants, blinding of personnel and outcome assessors, incomplete outcome data, selective reporting, and other forms of bias such as conflicts of interest. Discrepancies were discussed with a third reviewer (XG).

2.5. Publication Bias Assessment

Publication bias was assessed by funnel plots and Egger’s test using the Stata 12 software (StataCorp LLC, Texas, USA), where more than 10 RCTs were included in the meta-analysis.

2.6. Certainty of Evidence Assessment

The certainty of evidence, referring to the strength or reliability of study findings, was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach [43, 44]. The GRADE approach classifies the certainty of evidence in four levels (high, moderate, low, and very low) based on five factors: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness, and publication bias.

2.7. Data Analyses

Available data were merged for meta-analyses in RevMan 5.3.0 to evaluate the effects of CHM. The primary outcome measure was the frequency of migraine, and the secondary outcomes included days of migraine, pain visual analogue scale (VAS), duration of migraine attack, responder rate, acute medication usage, quality of life scores, and AEs. Treatment effects were evaluated at two time points: at the end of treatment (EoT) and at the end of follow-up (EoFU), where possible. Frequency analyses were conducted on CHM formulas and individual herbs. Mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used for continuous data, while risk ratios (RR) with 95% CIs were for dichotomous data. Statistical heterogeneity was assessed using the I² statistic. The random-effects model was selected for the meta-analyses presenting high heterogeneity with unknown reason; otherwise, the fixed-effects model was employed [41]. Where possible, subgroup analyses were performed to explore heterogeneity based on variables including the treatment duration, follow-up duration, and the dosage of flunarizine. Subgroup analyses were also conducted based on RCTs which applied the same CHM formulas and common herb pairs. AEs were summarized, and the frequencies were compared between groups.

3. Results

The original comprehensive electronic database search (until November 2018) identified 4,958 citations, and the updated search conducted in March 2019 yielded another 50 citations. In total, 35 RCTs met the inclusion criteria, with 31 RCTs included in the meta-analyses (Figure 1).

3.1. Characteristics of Included Studies

All included studies were open-label studies conducted in China and published in the Chinese language from 2003 to 2019. The RCTs enrolled 2,840 participants, with sample size ranging from 32 [45] to 240 [46] people. Dropouts were reported in seven studies [46–52]. The age of participants ranged from 18 to 75 years old, with disease durations between one month and 38 years. All studies used either 5 mg or 10 mg flunarizine in control groups and allowed acute pain rescue medicine as needed. According to the available information on gender, there were more female than male (1,750 vs. 1,060), but none of the studies reported gender-based treatment effects data. The treatment duration ranged from 28 days to 90 days. Eight studies involved a follow-up phase [46, 50, 53–58], where six provided detailed outcome data [46, 50, 53–56] (Table 1).

The outcome measures reported by the included studies were migraine frequency, migraine attack duration, migraine days, pain VAS, responder rate, usages of pain medication, and quality of life using the 6-item Headache Impact Test (HIT-6). With regard to AEs, nine studies [49, 52, 54, 56, 59–63] provided a general statement that there were no severe AEs, 15 studies reported details of AEs [47, 48, 50, 55, 57, 58, 71–79], and the remaining eleven studies did not report information on AEs [45, 46, 51, 53, 64–70].

3.2. CHM Treatments Used in the Included Studies

CHM was administered in the forms of decoctions (28 studies), capsules (five studies) [47, 53, 55, 57, 72], granules (one study) [78], and pills (one study) [71] (Table 1). Twenty-seven CHM formulas involving 104 individual herbs were used in the included studies. Two formulas were evaluated by multiple studies, namely, San Pian Tang [50, 74] and Zheng Tian granules [55] or pills [71]. The most frequent herbs used by all studies were Chuan Xiong (31 studies), Bai Zhi (18 studies), Bai Shao (16 studies), Gan Cao (13 studies), Tian Ma (13 studies), Dang Gui (12 studies), and Chai Hu (11 studies) (Table 2). It should be noted that, two herb pairs were frequently used by the included studies, specifically Chuan Xiong plus Bai Zhi (18 studies) and Chuan Xiong plus Tian Ma (10 studies). These two herb pairs had been developed into commercialized CHM products for migraine and documented in the Pharmacopoeia of China [80].

3.3. Risk of Bias

All studies mentioned randomization, however, only 13 RCTs (37.1%)[46, 48, 49, 51, 55, 59, 60, 62, 67, 69, 76, 78, 79] were assessed to have “low risk” of bias in terms of sequence generation; four studies (11.4%) [45, 50, 54, 74] were considered as “high risk” in this domain as participants were allocated based on the order of enrollment. All included studies were assessed as “unclear risk” of bias for allocation concealment due to lack of adequate information. In terms of blinding of participants, research personnel, and outcome assessors, all studies were judged as “high risk” of bias because no adequate blinding methods were employed despite the different types of intervention between groups. Most of the studies were at “low risk” of bias for incomplete outcome data; only one [48] was assessed as “high risk” in this domain due to a high and unbalanced dropout rate. Thirty-one studies (88.6%) were assessed as “unclear risk” of bias regarding selective outcome reporting due to the lack of registered protocols, while four RCTs were assessed as “high risk” because they did not report AEs [53] or outcome data of the follow-up phase [56–58] (Figure 2).

3.4. Treatment Effects

3.4.1. Primary Outcomes Measures

(1) Frequency of Migraine at EoT. Twenty-one studies with 1,567 participants reported the frequency of migraine attacks at EoT. Overall meta-analysis showed that oral CHM was more effective than flunarizine in terms of reducing migraine attack frequency (MD: −1.23, 95% CI (−1.69, −0.76), I² = 97%).

The subgroup analysis based on treatment duration indicated that CHM was superior to flunarizine when applied for a treatment period of 28 or 30 days (14 studies, MD: −1.16, 95% CI (−1.55, −0.76), I² = 88%) [45, 47, 48, 50, 56, 58–61, 66, 67, 69, 70, 78] and 84 or 90 days (five studies, MD: −0.87, 95% CI (−1.15, −0.60), I² = 75%) [53–55, 64, 74]. However, such effects were not seen in the subgroup of RCTs conducting 56 or 60 days treatments (two studies, MD: −1.92, 95% CI (−4.43, 0.60), I² = 100%) [57, 77] (Figure 3).

The subgroup analysis based on dosage of flunarizine showed that oral CHM was more effective than flunarizine on both 5 mg daily (eight studies, MD: -1.64, 95% CI (−2.65, −0.64), I² = 99%) [45, 50, 55, 57, 64, 66, 67, 70] and 10 mg daily (11 studies, MD: −0.99, 95% CI (−1.25, −0.74), I² = 75%) [47, 48, 53, 56, 59–61, 69, 74, 77, 78] (Figure 4).

(2) Frequency of Migraine at EoFU. Five studies reported the frequency of migraine attacks at EoFU. The follow-up duration was either 28 days [50, 55, 56] or 60 days [53, 54]. The overall meta-analysis favored CHM (MD: −0.96, 95% CI (−1.70, −0.21), I² = 96%). Subgroup analyses showed CHM being more effective than flunarizine at the end of a 28-day follow-up phase (three studies, MD: −1.33, 95% CI (−2.45, −0.20), I² = 92%) [50, 55, 56], but not at the end of a 60-day follow-up phase (two studies, MD: −0.45, 95% CI (−1.20, 0.30), I² = 89%) [53, 54] (Figure 5).

Two RCTs which conducted a 28-day treatment showed that at EoFU, CHM was more effective than flunarizine (MD: −1.84, 95% CI (−2.62, −1.05), I² = 78%) [50, 56]. While studies which conducted a 90-day treatment showed no difference between groups at EoFU (three studies, MD: −0.43, 95% CI (−0.98, 0.12), I² = 81%) [53–55] (Figure 6).

Based on the dosage of flunarizine, it was found that CHM showed equivalent effects when compared to a dose of 5 mg flunarizine at EoFU (two studies, MD: −1.29, 95% CI (−3.09, 0.52), I² = 96%) [50, 55], but was more effective when compared with 10 mg daily flunarizine (two studies, MD: −0.98, 95% CI (−1.50, −0.46), I² = 61%) [53, 56] (Figure 7).

3.4.2. Secondary Outcomes Measures

(1) Days of Migraine. Four studies with 446 participants [46, 50, 55, 56] reported data on the days of migraine attack, and the meta-analysis showed no difference between CHM and flunarizine, both at EoT (MD: −1.65 (−3.85, 0.54), I² = 96%) and EoFU (MD: −2.18 (−5.08, 0.72), I² = 97%) (Table 3).

(2) Pain VAS. Fourteen studies with 1,036 participants [48–50, 52, 55, 64, 68, 71–76, 78] reported pain VAS at EoT, showing a greater pain reduction achieved by CHM than flunarizine (MD: −1.04 (−1.67, −0.40), I² = 96%). However, there was no difference at EoFU of 28 days (two studies, MD: −1.56 (−3.73, 0.61), I² = 96%) [50, 55] (Table 3).

(3) Duration of Migraine Attack. Twenty studies with 1,495 participants reported the average duration of migraine attacks [45, 47, 48, 51, 53–55, 57, 58, 60, 64, 66, 69, 70, 72, 74, 75, 77–79]. Oral CHM was more effective than flunarizine in shortening the duration of migraine attacks at EoT (MD: −2.24 (−3.18, −1.30), I² = 92%) but not at EoFU (three studies, MD: −3.60 (−8.85, 1.66), I² = 97%) [53–55] (Table 3).

(4) Responder Rate. Five studies [46, 55, 56, 65, 75] involving 547 participants reported responder rate at EoT and meta-analysis showed superior effects of CHM (RR: 1.37 (1.23, 1.52), I² = 0%) (Table 3).

(5) Acute Medication Usage. In terms of the acute medication usage, participants in the CHM group used less pain medication than those in the flunarizine group at both EoT (five studies, MD: −0.58 (−1.03, −0.13), I² = 94%) [46, 50, 54, 55, 59] and EoFU (four studies, MD: −0.69 (−1.22, −0.15), I² = 96%) [46, 50, 54, 55] (Table 3).

(6) Quality of Life. One study [62] involving 120 participants reported data on quality of life using HIT-6 at EoT, with the results favoring the CHM group (Table 3).

3.4.3. Meta-Analyses for Individual Formula

Two RCTs [50, 74] evaluated the effectiveness of the oral CHM formula San Pian Tang on 175 participants. Meta-analysis of pain VAS showed that San Pian Tang was more effective than flunarizine at EoT (MD: −1.88, 95% CI (−3.14, −0.62), I² = 92%). Another two studies with 108 participants [55, 71] evaluated the effectiveness of Zheng Tian pills/granules in reducing pain VAS at EoT, showing that Zheng Tian pill/granule achieved lower pain VAS than flunarizine at EoT (MD: −0.64, 95% CI (−1.08, −0.20), I² = 0%) (Table 3).

3.4.4. Frequency of Migraine Based on Herb Pairs

Common herb pairs identified from the CHM formulas of the RCTs were pooled for subgroup analyses for migraine frequency. Ten RCTs [48, 50, 54–56, 60, 61, 64, 74, 77] with 793 participants used CHM containing the herb pair Chuan Xiong plus Bai Zhi. These studies achieved superior effects of CHM in reducing migraine attack frequency at EoT (MD: −1.00, 95% CI (−1.41, −0.60), I² = 90%). However, such effects were not observed at EoFU (four studies, MD: −0.99, 95% CI (−2.17, 0.19), I² = 96%) [50, 54–56] (Table 3).

Four studies used the herb pair Chuan Xiong plus Tian Ma [45, 57, 64, 70] and showed no difference between two groups at EoT (MD: −1.34, 95% CI (−3.00, 0.32), I² = 99%) (Table 3).

3.5. Publications Bias

The funnel plots of migraine frequency, migraine attack duration, and pain VAS at EoT were conducted as the meta-analyses of these outcomes involved more than ten studies. All funnel plots (Figure 8) were symmetrical and seemed unlikely to have publication bias. Egger’s test was further conducted, and publication bias was not detected () (Figure 9). Funnel plots and Egger’s test could not be conducted for the other outcome measures due to the limited number of included studies.

(a)

(b)

(c)

(a)

(b)

(c)

3.6. Assessment Using GRADE

The certainty of evidence obtained from meta-analyses on the primary outcome measures is presented in Table 4. Oral CHM was more effective than flunarizine for reducing migraine frequency at EoT and EoFU, but the certainty of this evidence was “low” and “very low,” respectively.

3.7. Adverse Events

AEs were categorized and calculated to assess the safety of the treatments. Based on the available data from 15 studies that reported detailed information of AEs, the number of AEs in the CHM group was less than that in the flunarizine group (34 vs 50). As shown in Table 5, most AEs were mild and did not require additional medical management. None of the participants dropped out due to AEs. Gastrointestinal symptoms (i.e., nausea, stomach discomfort, diarrheal, and abdominal distension) and other symptoms (including drowsiness, dizziness, fatigue, and insomnia) were commonly seen in both CHM and flunarizine groups. Other AEs reported in the CHM group were three cases of irregular menstruation [57], one acne [48], and one slight decrease in platelet count [55], while the flunarizine group had common reports of weight gain [57, 76], some extrapyramidal symptoms such as ataxic [57, 72] and involuntary movements [47], as well as one case of moderate liver function impairment [76].

4. Discussion

4.1. Summary of Results

This systematic review provides evidence showing that oral CHM is more effective than flunarizine for episodic migraine prophylaxis based on these outcome measures: migraine frequency, pain VAS, migraine attack duration, responder rate, and acute medication usage at EoT. Oral CHM also showed better effects than flunarizine for migraine frequency and acute medication usage at EoFU. In addition, there was no difference between CHM and flunarizine in migraine days (at both EoT and EoFU) and pain VAS and migraine attack duration at EoFU. Nevertheless, the overall methodological quality of the included studies was low, and the certainty of evidence was “low” or “very low” based on GRADE assessment.

As substantial heterogeneity existed in most meta-analyses, subgroup meta-analyses were conducted on the primary outcome measures, based on the treatment duration, follow-up duration, and dosage of flunarizine. These subgroup analyses showed that CHM produced superior or equivalent effects as flunarizine. However, heterogeneity remained considerable within the subgroup analyses. The possible causes of heterogeneity are the uses of different CHM formulas, disease severity, and duration across trials. It should be noted that two studies reported migraine frequency at EoT with exceptional results [51, 75]; therefore, they were excluded from the meta-analysis of this outcome.

This study shows that CHM is well-tolerated when compared to flunarizine. Fifteen studies provided detailed information on AEs; all of them were mild or moderate and did not require specific management. Most of the common complaints in both CHM and flunarizine groups such as fatigue, insomnia, and digestive problems could be the associated symptoms of migraine [1] rather than side effects caused by treatments. One case of decreased platelet count was reported, but there was not a confirmed association between this event and CHM [55]. Weight gain and ataxia were only reported in the flunarizine group, which agrees with previous research results on flunarizine [15, 16, 18, 24, 81, 82]. Considering that aging [81, 83–85] and increased dosage [11, 40, 86, 87] of flunarizine and the predisposing factors for its side effects, CHM could be an alternative for elderly patients and those who suffer from common side effects of flunarizine.

As shown in the meta-analyses, CHM has an advantage in reducing acute pain medication usage, indicating its potential of preventing medication overuse, which is a common concern in headache [10] and chronic migraine [88] treatment.

Previous research suggested that CHM is an effective add-on therapy for migraine [36]. It is known that flunarizine should be taken for several weeks to show its full effects in migraine prevention [11, 40, 83, 84]; during this period, patients may be unsatisfied with its treatment effects. The subgroup analysis in our review demonstrated that oral CHM was superior to flunarizine when they were used for four weeks and equivalent to flunarizine when they were used for eight weeks. Hence, our results support the use of CHM as a potential adjuvant therapy to increase the effectiveness of flunarizine. However, the drug interactions between flunarizine and Chinese medicine herbs or formulas have not been well investigated, and this is an area which requires further research.

4.2. Mechanisms of Herbs

There has been increasing experimental research on the active compounds of CHM in attempts to elucidate their potential mechanisms for migraine. For example, one of the main compounds found in Chuan Xiong (Ligusticum chuanxiong), senkyunolide I, was proved to reduce migraine pain by adjusting the levels and turnover rates of monoamine neurotransmitters and decrease nitric oxide (NO) levels in the blood and brain [32]. Bai Zhi (Angelicae Dahuricae Radix) was reported to have antimigraine actions by modulating the levels of vasoactive substances such as NO, calcitonin gene-related peptides, and endothelin [89, 90]. Tian Ma (Gastrodia elata) contains the active ingredient, gastrodin, which has been found to demonstrate antimigraine, antihyperalgesic, and antinociceptive effects, possibly by inhibiting trigeminal nerve activation at central sites and also inhibiting the peripheral release of calcitonin gene-related peptides following the NO scavenging effect [91, 92].

This review has also provided meta-analysis evidence supporting the use of two herb pairs in migraine, namely, Chuan Xiong plus Bai Zhi and Chuan Xiong plus Tian Ma. Herb pairs form the basis of CHM formulation and are believed to result in synergistic effects or reduced side effects/toxicity [93]. It has been suggested that herb pairs are potential research entry-point for research on CHM mechanisms [93]. The two herb pairs evidenced in this review are also CHM formulas that have been traditionally used for the treatment of headaches/migraines [80]. The combination of Chuan Xiong and Bai Zhi is a formula known as Du Liang Wan with experimental studies showing the function of adjusting the level of neurotransmitters and vasoactive substances to relieve neurogenic inflammation [94, 95]. The other herb pair (Chuan Xiong plus Tian Ma) is known as Da Chuan Xiong Wan, which has been proved to reduce inflammatory mediators through inhibition of the NF-kappaB pathway [31].

4.3. Strengths and Limitations of This Study

One strength of this review is that the prolonged effects of oral CHM has been evaluated, which has been highlighted by clinical guidelines as an important outcome assessment of prophylactic treatments of migraine [10, 11, 96, 97]. Furthermore, the active comparator in this review was restricted to flunarizine with a treatment duration of at least four weeks; this is consistent with the recommendations of clinical guidelines for migraine prophylaxis [10–12, 39, 40]. This allows for more targeted evaluations and reduces variables regarding the different types and doses of conventional migraine prophylaxis treatment. This review also conducted subgroup analyses based on the treatment duration, follow-up duration, and dosage of flunarizine.

The major limitations of this systematic review include the low methodological quality of included studies and high heterogeneity across most meta-analyses and subgroup analyses, reducing the certainty of evidence. Future studies need to adopt more rigorous designs to ensure appropriate sequence generation, allocation concealment, and blinding procedures. It was noted that the CHM formulas were administered with different forms including decoction, pills, and granule. However, this systematic review failed to conduct subgroup meta-analysis based on CHM forms due to the small number of studies which applied same CHM formulation and reported same outcome measures. Differences of effectiveness among diverse CHM forms with the same formulation could be explored in future studies. Safety evaluation of treatments should also be given more attention in future clinical studies so that clinicians and patients will be able to make more informed decisions.

5. Conclusion

Cautiously, the oral CHM has the potential to act as an alternative prophylactic treatment of migraine. The results from this review show that the effects of oral CHM are, at least, equivalent to flunarizine in preventing migraine attacks in adults at EoT and EoFU, well-tolerated by participants, regardless of the treatment duration, follow-up duration, and dosage of flunarizine. However, these results need to be interpreted with caution due to the low certainty of evidence. Future studies with more rigorous designs are needed to provide more concrete evidence for stronger conclusions. This review also provides evidence for two herb pairs, Chuan Xiong plus Bai Zhi and Chuan Xiong plus Tian Ma for migraine prophylaxis. In addition, this review draws attention to the potential and need to evaluate oral CHM as an adjunct treatment to flunarizine in the prophylactic treatment of migraines.

Data Availability

This research is a systematic review, and all data are sourced from published articles.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.

Authors’ Contributions

Claire Shuiqing Zhang should be the co-first author. SL and CSZ designed this review, performed database search, data extraction, statistical analyses, and drafted the manuscript. XG was involved in the risk of bias assessment. XG, ALZ CCX, CL, and XL provided critical comments for revising the manuscript.

Acknowledgments

The project was jointly supported by the China-Australia International Research Centre for Chinese Medicine (CAIRCCM)—a joint initiative of RMIT University, Australia, and the Guangdong Provincial Academy of Chinese Sciences, China. The project was also supported by the Studio of Huang Huang based in Guangdong Provincial Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine (grant no. E43723). The authors would like to thank Yan-Juan Xu and Liu Liao who assisted with data extraction.

References

Headache Classification Committee of the International Headache Society, “The international classification of headache disorders, 3rd edition,” Cephalalgia, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 1–211, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. J. Steiner, L. J. Stovner, and G. L. Birbeck, “Migraine: the seventh disabler,” Cephalalgia, vol. 14, p. 1, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Saylor and T. J. Steiner, “The global burden of headache,” Seminars in Neurology, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 182–190, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Headache Disorders-not respected, not resourced, All-Party Parliamentary Group on Primary Headache Disorders (APPGPHD), 2010.
D. C. Buse, J. D. Greisman, K. Baigi, and R. B. Lipton, “Migraine progression: a systematic review,” Headache: The Journal of Head and Face Pain, vol. 59, no. 3, pp. 306–338, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. E. Bigal, D. Serrano, D. Buse, A. Scher, W. F. Stewart, and R. B. Lipton, “Acute migraine medications and evolution from episodic to chronic migraine: a longitudinal population-based study,” Headache: The Journal of Head and Face Pain, vol. 48, no. 8, pp. 1157–1168, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
W. J. Becker, M. Gawel, G. Mackie, V. South, and S. N. Christie, “Migraine treatment,” The Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. S10–S19, 2007.
View at: Google Scholar
L. J. Cooke and W. J. Becker, “Migraine prevalence, treatment and impact: the Canadian women and migraine study,” Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences/Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques, vol. 37, no. 5, pp. 580–587, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. H. Ford, J. Jackson, G. Milligan, S. Cotton, J. Ahl, and S. K. Aurora, “A real-world analysis of migraine: a cross-sectional study of disease burden and treatment patterns,” Headache: The Journal of Head and Face Pain, vol. 57, no. 10, pp. 1532–1544, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network 155·Pharmacological Management of Migraine, 2018, https://www.sign.ac.uk/assets/sign155.pdf.
T. C. Huang, T. H. Lai, Treatment Guideline Subcommittee of Taiwan Headache Society Taiwan Headache Society et al., “Medical treatment guidelines for preventive treatment of migraine,” Acta Neurologica Taiwanica, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 33–53, 2017.
View at: Google Scholar
T. Pringsheim, W. Davenport, G. Mackie et al., “Canadian headache society guideline for migraine prophylaxis,” Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. S1–S59, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Evers, J. Áfra, A. Frese et al., “EFNS guideline on the drug treatment of migraine—revised report of an EFNS task force,” European Journal of Neurology, vol. 16, no. 9, pp. 968–981, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. Chronicle and W. Mulleners, “Anticonvulsant drugs for migraine prophylaxis,” Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, vol. 3, 2004.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Stubberud, N. M. Flaaen, D. C. McCrory, S. A. Pedersen, and M. Linde, “Flunarizine as prophylaxis for episodic migraine,” Pain, vol. 160, no. 4, pp. 762–772, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. Karsan, D. Palethorpe, W. Rattanawong, J. C. Marin, R. Bhola, and P. J. Goadsby, “Flunarizine in migraine-related headache prevention: results from 200 patients treated in the UK,” European Journal of Neurology, vol. 25, no. 6, pp. 811–817, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. H. de Bock, J. Eelhart, H. W. J. van Marwijk, T. P. Tromp, and M. P. Springer, “A postmarketing study of flunarizine in migraine and vertigo,” Pharmacy World and Science, vol. 19, no. 6, pp. 269–274, 1997.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. M. Martínez-Lage, “Flunarizine (Sibelium) in the prophylaxis of migraine. An open, long-term, multicenter trial,” Cephalalgia, vol. 8, no. 8, pp. 15–20, 1988.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Maltese and C. Bucolo, “Pharmacokinetic profile of topical flunarizine in rabbit eye and plasma,” Journal of Ocular Pharmacology and Therapeutics, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 171–179, 2003.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Q. Ye, L.-Y. Yan, L.-J. Xue et al., “Flunarizine blocks voltage-gated Na⁺ and Ca²⁺ currents in cultured rat cortical neurons: a possible locus of action in the prevention of migraine,” Neuroscience Letters, vol. 487, no. 3, pp. 394–399, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Q. Ye, Q. Wang, L. Y. Yan et al., “Flunarizine inhibits sensory neuron excitability by blocking voltage-gated Na⁺ and Ca²⁺ currents in trigeminal ganglion neurons,” Chinese Medical Journal, vol. 124, no. 17, pp. 2649–2655, 2011.
View at: Google Scholar
K. Ayajiki, T. Okamura, and N. Toda, “Flunarizine, an anti-migraine agent, impairs nitroxidergic nerve function in cerebral arteries,” European Journal of Pharmacology, vol. 329, no. 1, pp. 49–53, 1997.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Wauquier, D. Ashton, and R. Marrannes, “The effects of flunarizine in experimental models related to the pathogenesis of migraine,” Cephalalgia, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 119–123, 1985.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Vécsei, Z. Majláth, D. Szok, A. Csáti, and J. Tajti, “Drug safety and tolerability in prophylactic migraine treatment,” Expert Opinion on Drug Safety, vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 667–681, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Q. Xu, Herb Pairs of Chinese Medicine, Chinese Medicine Press, Beijing, China, 1996.
W. I. Lu and D. P. Lu, “Impact of Chinese herbal medicine on American society and health care system: perspective and concern,” Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine, vol. 2014, Article ID 251891, 6 pages, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. S. Boon, D. C. Cherkin, J. Erro et al., “Practice patterns of naturopathic physicians: results from a random survey of licensed practitioners in two US States,” BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine, vol. 4, no. 14, 2004.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. L. Wardle, D. W. Sibbritt, and J. Adams, “The interface with naturopathy in rural primary health care: a survey of referral practices of general practitioners in rural and regional New South Wales, Australia,” BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine, vol. 14, p. 238, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. P. Meyer, “Naturopaths in Ontario, Canada: geographic patterns in intermediately-sized metropolitan areas and integration implications,” Journal of Complementary and Integrative Medicine, vol. 14, no. 1, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Conde, V. S. C. Corrêa, F. Carmona, S. H. T. Contini, and A. M. S. Pereira, “Chemical composition and therapeutic effects of Lippia alba (Mill.) N. E. Brown leaves hydro-alcoholic extract in patients with migraine,” Phytomedicine, vol. 18, no. 14, pp. 1197–1201, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Z.-K. Liu, C.-F. Ng, H.-T. Shiu et al., “Neuroprotective effect of Da Chuanxiong formula against cognitive and motor deficits in a rat controlled cortical impact model of traumatic brain injury,” Journal of Ethnopharmacology, vol. 217, pp. 11–22, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y.-H. Wang, S. Liang, D.-S. Xu et al., “Effect and mechanism of senkyunolide I as an anti-migraine compound from Ligusticum chuanxiong,” Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmacology, vol. 63, no. 2, pp. 261–266, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Fu, L. Yu, Y. Zou et al., “Efficacy of chuan xiong ding tong herbal formula granule in the treatment and prophylactic of migraine patients: a randomized, double-blind, multicenter, placebo-controlled trial,” Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine, vol. 2012, Article ID 967, 9 pages, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Pareek, M. Suthar, G. Rathore, and V. Bansal, “Feverfew (Tanacetum parthenium L.): a systematic review,” Pharmacognosy Reviews, vol. 5, no. 9, pp. 103–110, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Zhou, P. Chen, L. Liu et al., “Systematic review and meta-analysis of traditional Chinese medicine in the treatment of migraines,” The American Journal of Chinese Medicine, vol. 41, no. 5, pp. 1011–1025, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. S. Shan, Q. Q. Xu, Y. H. Shi, Y. Wang, Z. X. He, and G. Zheng, “Chuan xiong formulae for migraine: a systematic review and meta-analysis of high-quality randomized controlled trials,” Frontiers in Pharmacology, vol. 9, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
W. Xia, M. Zhu, Z. Zhang et al., “Effect of Tianshu capsule in treatment of migrane: a meta-analysis of randomized control trials,” Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 9–14, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. Xiao, L. Yuan, Y. Liu et al., “Traditional Chinese patent medicine for prophylactic treatment of migraine: a meta-analysis of randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials,” European Journal of Neurology, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 361–368, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. W. Li, Y. S. Li, R. Z. Liu et al., “Clinical guideline for diagnosis and management of migraine in China [article in Chinese],” Chinese Journal of Pain Medicine, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 65–86, 2011.
View at: Google Scholar
Headache Group of Pain Science Branch of Chinese Medical Association, “Clinical guideline for migraine prophylaxis in China [article in Chinese],” Chinese Journal of Pain Medicine, vol. 22, no. 10, 2016.
View at: Google Scholar
J. Higgins and S. Green, Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0, The Cochrane Collaboration, London, UK, 2011, https://www.handbook.cochrane.org.
N. Suzuki, “New international classification of headache disorders (ICHD-II),” Rinsho Shinkeigaku, vol. 44, no. 11, pp. 940–943, 2004.
View at: Google Scholar
G. H. Guyatt, A. D. Oxman, G. E. Vist et al., “GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations,” BMJ, vol. 336, no. 7650, p. 924, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
The GRADE Working Group, “GRADE handbook for grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations,”, 2013.
View at: Google Scholar
G. Zhong, W. Li, Y. H. Luo et al., “Herbs for calming liver and suppressing liver-yang in treatment of migraine with hyperactive liver-yang sydrome and its effects on lymphocyte protein expression: a randomized controlled trial,” Journal of Chinese Integrative Medicine, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 25–33, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. Liang, “A clinical study on the treatment of migraine liver depression and spleen deficiency with detuning prescription,” Changchun University of Chinese Medicine, Changchun, China, 2015, Dissertation.
View at: Google Scholar
Y. X. Du, L. B. Yang, J. Ma, and C. Yang, “Effectiveness of clearing collaterals for migraine: a clinical trial report [article in Chinese],” China Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine and Pharmacy, vol. 26, no. 7, pp. 1652-1653, 2011.
View at: Google Scholar
T. T. Liu, “Effects of “Tou Tong an Fang” for migraine with phlegm-heat: a randomized clinical trial,” Xinjiang Medical University, Ürümqi, China, 2009, Dissertation.
View at: Google Scholar
L. J. Mao, P. F. Wu, and L. H. Mei, “Effects of the method of relieving depression and expelling Wind and clearing collaterals for migraine: a randomized controlled trial [article in Chinese],” Chinese Journal of Integrative Medicine on Cardio/Cerebrovascular Disease, vol. 9, no. 6, pp. 693-694, 2011.
View at: Google Scholar
B. Shen, C. Yu, L. Wang et al., “Clinical research: San pian decoction for migraine (blood stasis in liver meridian) [article in Chinese],” Chinese Medicine Modern District Education China, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 51–54, 2016.
View at: Google Scholar
Y. Wang, “Clinical research: treating migraine with hyperactivity of liver yang by calming Liver yang, expelling Wind and clearing collaterals [article in Chinese],” Henan Traditional Chinese Medicine, vol. 33, no. 6, pp. 921-922, 2013.
View at: Google Scholar
J. Chen, “Clinical trial to evaluate the effectiveness of Qiong Zhi Zhen Tong prescription for migraine,” Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine, Nanjing, China, 2010, Dissertation.
View at: Google Scholar
B. H. Dai, “Effectiveness of Xue se tong soft capsule for migraine: a randomized controlled trial [article in Chinese],” Chinese Journal of Integrative Medicine, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 65-66, 2005.
View at: Google Scholar
P. K. Pan, L. Chen, D. Z. Ma, X. L. Wang, and J. Cao, “Effectiveness of modified Xiong long decoction for migraine: a clinical trial [article in Chinese],” Shanxi Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine, vol. 36, no. 11, pp. 1464–1466, 2015.
View at: Google Scholar
Y. L. Xie, “Effectiveness of Zheng Tian capsule for migraine with hyperactive wind and blood stasis: a clinical trial,” Hubei University of Chinese Medicine, Hubei, China, 2015, Dissertation.
View at: Google Scholar
L. N. Xin, “A clinical study to evaluate the effectiveness of headache prescriptions for migraine (Qi deficiency and blood stasis),” Changchun University of Chinese Medicine, Changchun, China, 2016, Dissertation.
View at: Google Scholar
H. M. Gao, Y. Q. Liu, and S. P. Wang, “Clinical trial report: effectiveness of Tian shu capsule for migraine [article in Chinese],” Chinese Traditional Patent Medicine, vol. 28, no. 5, pp. 680–682, 2006.
View at: Google Scholar
J. Y. Gao, J. Sun, L. P. Wu, and H. Meng, “Clinical research: Chinese herbal medicine for female migraine [article in Chinese],” Journal of Emergency Traditional Chinese Medicine, vol. 18, no. 4, p. 507, 2009.
View at: Google Scholar
M. K. Cai, “Effectiveness of Dang gui si ni decoction for migraine: a clinical trial report [article in Chinese],” World’s Latina Medicine Infectious Digoxin, vol. 39, pp. 153–157, 2018.
View at: Google Scholar
Z. X. Cai, Y. Chen, C. Q. Wang, L. Li, Y. Wang, and Y. H. Hu, “Clinical trial: Li xu qu feng tong Luo decoction for migraine without aura [article in Chinese],” Jilin Traditional Chinese Medicine, vol. 12, p. 14, 2017.
View at: Google Scholar
Q. Du, “Clinical research on the effects and potential mechanisms of Xiong Zhi decoction for migraine,” Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine, Nanjing, China, 2014, Dissertation.
View at: Google Scholar
G. Y. Fu, “Clinical trial: effectiveness of expelling wind and activating blood circulation method for migraine prophylaxis [article in Chinese],” Clinical Journal of Chinese Medicine, vol. 7, no. 11, pp. 101-102, 2015.
View at: Google Scholar
C. G. Gou and Z. G. Miao, “Clinical research: San pian decoction for migraine prophylaxis [article in Chinese],” Chinese Journal of Practical Nervous Diseases, vol. 17, no. 16, pp. 52-53, 2014.
View at: Google Scholar
H. Q. Huang, R. Y. Yang, and Y. X. Zhao, “Clinical research: the method of clearing collaterals in treating migraine [article in Chinese],” Journal of Chinese Medicine, vol. 38, no. 10, pp. 46-47, 2006.
View at: Google Scholar
J. C. Luo and J. S. Shu, “Clinical research: Tou tong decoction for migraine [article in Chinese],” International Traditional Journal of Chinese Medicine, vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 248-249, 2013.
View at: Google Scholar
J. D. Ma, “Effectiveness of Chai Hu Gui Zhi gan Jiang decoction for migraine: a randomized controlled clinical trial,” Shandong Traditional Chinese Medicine University, Shandong, China, 2014, Dissertation.
View at: Google Scholar
Z. C. Peng, “Effectiveness of Chinese herbal medicine for migraine: a clinical trial report [article in Chinese],” El Journal of International Chinese West Medicine Cardiovascular Disease, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 1-2, 2017.
View at: Google Scholar
Y. L. Qian and D. Yan, “Clinical trial report: effectiveness of Tong qiao huo xue decoction for migraine [article in Chinese],” Hunan Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine, vol. 22, no. 6, pp. 6–8, 2006.
View at: Google Scholar
M. Qu, Q. S. Tang, Q. H. Pei, and X. Li, “Randomized clinical trial: the method of warming yang and tonifying qi in treating migraine,” in Proceedings of the Third International Conference of Traditional Chinese Medicine and Integrated Chinese and Western Medicine on Geriatrics, p. 3, Henan, China, 2010.
View at: Google Scholar
S. Q. Song, “Effectiveness of Chinese herbal medicine for migraine based on Chinese medicine syndrome differentiation: a clinical trial report [Article in Chinese],” Guangxi Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine, vol. 40, no. 5, pp. 12-13, 2017.
View at: Google Scholar
D. Sun and B. H. Xu, “Clinical research on Chuan xiong cha tiao san for migraine and the subsequent change in the level of beta-endorphin and 5-HT [article in Chinese],” Journal of Emergency Traditional Chinese Medical, vol. 25, no. 11, pp. 2117–2119, 2016.
View at: Google Scholar
G. F. Wang, W. T. Li, and S. L. Wang, “Clinical research on the effects of San han huo yu zhi tong decoction for migraine (Yang deficiency and cold stasis type) [article in Chinese],” Journal of New Chinese Medicine, vol. 44, no. 12, pp. 22-23, 2012.
View at: Google Scholar
L. Q. Wang, “Clinical trial: Rou gan Xi Feng decoction for prophylaxis of migraine (liver yang uprising type),” Henan University of traditional Chinese medicine, Henan, China, 2016, Dissertation.
View at: Google Scholar
A. Q. Yuan, “Clinical research: using the method of clearing heat, drying dampness and harmonizing Shaoyang for migraine,” Shandong Traditional Chinese Medicine University, 2017, Dissertation.
View at: Google Scholar
P. Zhang, “Clinical research: Zheng Tian pill for migraine (blood stasis type),” Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine, Nanjing, China, 2013, Dissertation.
View at: Google Scholar
Q. X. Zhang and F. X. Sun, “Clinical research on the effects of Yang xue ping gan decoction for migraine and the subsequent change in the level of serum ET-1, CGRP and NO [article in Chinese],” Journal of Sichuan Traditional Chinese Medicine, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 134–138, 2019.
View at: Google Scholar
Y. D. Zhang, “Observation on the treatment effect of treating migraine with liver yang uprising by calming liver yang, removing blood stasis and clearing collaterals [article in Chinese],” Guidence Chinese Medicine, vol. 12, no. 18, pp. 281-282, 2014.
View at: Google Scholar
Y. L. Zhu, “Effectiveness of Tian ma su capsule for migraine: a randomized controlled trial [article in Chinese],” Publications Medicine for Magnesium, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 312-313, 2006.
View at: Google Scholar
Z. P. Niu, Y. L. Hou, and X. Ren, “Effectiveness of Yang xue qing nao granule for migraine: a randomized controlled trial [article in Chinese],” Integrated Chinese West Medicine Journal of Cardio-Cerebrovasc Disorder, vol. 6, pp. 327–329, 2003.
View at: Google Scholar
Chinese Pharmacopoeia Commission, Chinese Pharmacopoeia, China Medical Science and Technology Press, Beijing, China, 2015.
R. Schmidt and W. Oestreich, “Flunarizine in migraine prophylaxis: the clinical experience,” Journal of Cardiovascular Pharmacology and Therapeutics, vol. 18, no. 8, pp. 21–26, 1991.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. J. Shimell, V. U. Fritz, and S. L. Levien, “A comparative trial of flunarizine and propranolol in the prevention of migraine,” South African Medical Journal, vol. 77, no. 2, pp. 75–77, 1990.
View at: Google Scholar
P. Sarchielli, M. L. Mancini, and P. Calabresi, “Practical considerations for the treatment of elderly patients with migraine,” Drugs & Aging, vol. 23, no. 6, pp. 461–489, 2006.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Brücke, C. Wöber, I. Podreka et al., “D2 receptor blockade by flunarizine and cinnarizine explains extrapyramidal side effects. A SPECT study,” Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow & Metabolism, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 513–518, 1995.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
W. Lin, C. L. Lin, C. Y. Hsu, and C. Y. Wei, “Flunarizine induced Parkinsonism in migraine group: a nationwide population-based study,” Frontiers in Pharmacology, vol. 10, p. 1495, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Bassi, L. Brunati, B. Rapuzzi, E. Alberti, and A. Mangoni, “Low dose flunarizine in the prophylaxis of migraine,” Headache: The Journal of Head and Face Pain, vol. 32, no. 8, pp. 390–392, 1992.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Heykants, J. De Crée, and C. Hörig, “Steady-state plasma levels of flunarizine in chronically treated patients,” Arzneimittel-Forschung, vol. 29, no. 8, pp. 1168–1171, 1979.
View at: Google Scholar
A. May and L. H. Schulte, “Chronic migraine: risk factors, mechanisms and treatment,” Nature Reviews Neurology, vol. 12, no. 8, pp. 455–464, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
O.-H. Kang, G.-H. Lee, H. J. Choi et al., “Ethyl acetate extract from Angelica Dahuricae radix inhibits lipopolysaccharide-induced production of nitric oxide, prostaglandin E2 and tumor necrosis factor-α via mitogen-activated protein kinases and nuclear factor-κB in macrophages,” Pharmacological Research, vol. 55, no. 4, pp. 263–270, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Sun, H. Li, J. Sun, H. Liu, J. Chen, and C. Wang, “Chemical composition and antimigraine activity of essential oil of Angelicae dahuricae radix,” Journal of Medicinal Food, vol. 20, no. 8, pp. 797–803, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P.-H. Wang, L.-X. Zhao, J.-Y. Wan et al., “Pharmacological characterization of a novel gastrodin derivative as a potential anti-migraine agent,” Fitoterapia, vol. 109, pp. 52–57, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. Liu, J. Gao, M. Peng et al., “A review on central nervous system effects of Gastrodin,” Frontiers in Pharmacology, vol. 9, p. 24, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Wang, Y. Hu, W. Tan et al., “Compatibility art of traditional Chinese medicine: from the perspective of herb pairs,” Journal of Ethnopharmacology, vol. 143, no. 2, pp. 412–423, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Hou, Q. Tang, Q. Xue et al., “Pharmacodynamic action and mechanism of Du Liang soft capsule, a traditional Chinese medicine capsule, on treating nitroglycerin-induced migraine,” Journal of Ethnopharmacology, vol. 195, pp. 231–237, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Feng, X. He, P. Zhong, J. Zhao, C. Huang, and Z. Hu, “A metabolism-based synergy for total coumarin extract of radix angelicae dahuricae and Ligustrazine on migraine-modle rats,” Molecules, vol. 23, no. 5, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
I. Worthington, T. Pringsheim, M. J. Gawel et al., “Canadian headache society guideline: acute drug therapy for migraine headache,” The Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences, vol. 40, no. S3, pp. S1–S3, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Tfelt-Hansen, J. Pascual, N. Ramadan et al., “Guidelines for controlled trials of drugs in migraine: third edition. A guide for investigators,” Cephalalgia, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 6–38, 2012.
View at: Google Scholar

Copyright

Copyright © 2020 Shaohua Lyu et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

PDF Download Citation

Download other formats

Order printed copies